"The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that federal agencies do not have to follow procedures for notifying the public and collecting comment when changing the interpretations of rules, effectively removing steps from the process that can take months and sometimes years to complete."

“Because an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial interpretive rule, it is also not required to use those procedures when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule,” Sotomayor wrote

This government is slowly but surely no longer "of the people, by the people, [or] for the people."

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT...” -Declaration of Independence, 1776

Originally Posted By Sedona:This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.

View Quote

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT...” -Declaration of Independence, 1776

Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling.

"When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act). See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has nevertheless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997), that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The question in these cases is whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not."

View Quote

From the actual ruling...

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” 5 U. S. C. §551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called “legislative rules” are issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, see §§553(b), (c), and have the “force and effect of law,” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303. “Interpretive rules,” by contrast, are “issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99, do not require notice-and comment rulemaking, and “do not have the force and effect of law,” ibid.

Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.

View Quote

Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!

NRA Life MemberFormer GM1 U.S.C.G."Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

Originally Posted By disco_jon75:Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote....

From the actual ruling...

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By disco_jon75:Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote....

"When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act). See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has nevertheless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997), that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The question in these cases is whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not."

From the actual ruling...

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” 5 U. S. C. §551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called “legislative rules” are issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, see §§553(b), (c), and have the “force and effect of law,” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303. “Interpretive rules,” by contrast, are “issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99, do not require notice-and comment rulemaking, and “do not have the force and effect of law,” ibid.

Originally Posted By MK4Mod0:Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By MK4Mod0:

Originally Posted By Sedona:This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.

Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!

Depends on what flavor of R they decide to try to run, a Chris Christie type might be attractive to the FSA crowd.

The democratic process has been dead for a long time, this pretty much confirms it.

What bills other then Obamacare have been signed into law versus how much "change" Obama has effected via regulatory instead of legislative methods?

From the sounds of it, the ATF could use something like this to instantly run roughshod over the almost the entirety of the second amendment.
Or the EPA could essentially destroy entire industries.

No time for a legislative response against regulatory changes, just "we want it this way" and it is done. Sounds like this means there would be no timeframe to become compliant without penalty either.
Those friday afternoon document dumps from the WH could prove to be a whole lot more interesting.

"There is a time for peace and talk and reason; and then, at long last, and only with sadness of heart and mournful admission that all your wisdom and words have failed, you must go kill you some motherfuckers and set some of their shit on fire"

Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling.

From the actual ruling...

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By disco_jon75:Hey Chicken Littles!

READ THIS:

Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling.

"When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act). See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has nevertheless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997), that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The question in these cases is whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not."

From the actual ruling...

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” 5 U. S. C. §551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called “legislative rules” are issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, see §§553(b), (c), and have the “force and effect of law,” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303. “Interpretive rules,” by contrast, are “issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99, do not require notice-and comment rulemaking, and “do not have the force and effect of law,” ibid.

Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling.

"When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act). See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has nevertheless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997), that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The question in these cases is whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not."

From the actual ruling...

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” 5 U. S. C. §551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called “legislative rules” are issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, see §§553(b), (c), and have the “force and effect of law,” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303. “Interpretive rules,” by contrast, are “issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99, do not require notice-and comment rulemaking, and “do not have the force and effect of law,” ibid.

Yeah, but, Nazi pictures and internet patriot cliches!

Indeed

Originally Posted By GrahamD:If I'm ever in a porno, my name will be Marshall Law.

Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling.

From the actual ruling...

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
Hey Chicken Littles!

READ THIS:

Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling.

"When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act). See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has nevertheless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997), that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The question in these cases is whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not."

From the actual ruling...

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for "rule making,” defined as the process of "formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” 5 U. S. C. §551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called "legislative rules” are issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, see §§553(b), (c), and have the "force and effect of law,” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303. "Interpretive rules,” by contrast, are "issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99, do not require notice-and comment rulemaking, and "do not have the force and effect of law,” ibid.

Thank you. . .I think.

Now it's just a matter of blurring the line between legislative and interpretive ;-)

Originally Posted By MK4Mod0:Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!

View QuoteView All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Originally Posted By MK4Mod0:

Originally Posted By Sedona:This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.

Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!

If an R does not win in 2016 they liberal loons will get control of the SCOTUS and on top of amnesty thing it is truly game over.